Appeal No. 2000-0514
Application No. 09/063,446
Thus, the combined teachings of Nicely and Champagne do
not justify a conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claim 3 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable
over Nicely in view of Champagne.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. MCCANDLISH )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007